I fully agree. A lot of people say Moore's law is the transistors density doubling every 18 months (or 2 years, it varied). But this misses the economic angle t

I fully agree. A lot of people say Moore's law is the transistors density doubling every 18 months (or 2 years, it varied). But this misses the economic angle that was present from the start: Moore talked about the density of the least cost process. So Moore's law stops either when we cannot cram more transistors in a given area, or when we cannot increase density without raising the cost per transistor. From what I've read I agree it's the economics variant that will end Moore's law. We'll have ways to shrink / increase performance, but not sure if there will be enough market to justify the rising costs. A lot is riding on the continuation or end of Moore's law, so we should expect a lot of spin on this issue. I note that Intel claims they will decrease the cost per transistor until 10 nm at least, which is not the case for other fabs. But those other fabs are more transparent on costs than Intel, and Intel said they will produce a low cast modem+AP chip at... TSMC. Mmmm... We have very interesting times ahead of us. Not only in silicon: a lot of progress in all areas was fueled by cheap computing power. A halt in silicon progress would be felt everywhere. Case in point: I'm in telecommunications. Every big steps was enabled by more computation per watt. That's what enabled to move from single channel TDM to CDMA to OFDMA with wider bands. If we can't increase exponentially the amount of computation per watt, then don't expect an exponential increase in wireless throughput either. It will progress, as everything, but at a slower pace.